tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post508545097249406314..comments2014-12-12T05:29:46.343-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: If God Wanted Us to Believe...Dr. Hector Avaloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52302949837235102182007-06-29T18:08:00.000-04:002007-06-29T18:08:00.000-04:00God created animals, including those animals that ...God created animals, including those animals that eat meat, <I> because He felt like it </I>.Michael Ejercitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90178449686480560302007-06-28T13:26:00.000-04:002007-06-28T13:26:00.000-04:00God started at the beginning and stretched everyth...God started at the beginning and stretched everything out in fast forward mode up until the forming of the promised land which took six days of work. So, the universe has the appearence of age just like water being turned into wine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41602733854098051382007-06-28T08:14:00.000-04:002007-06-28T08:14:00.000-04:00If God instantaneously created the universe it wou...If God instantaneously created the universe it would have been a miricle and the universe would have the appearence of age. That would only be deceptive if you were assuming that in order for a statement to be true it has to be emperically verified. But you can't emperically verify emperical verifiability. So, the miricle of creation holds.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64361750251708663802007-06-23T10:26:00.000-04:002007-06-23T10:26:00.000-04:00oops, (insufficient coffee intake,) that should re...oops, (insufficient coffee intake,) that should read:<BR/><BR/>...dogmatic evolutionists would just shut up <B>and</B> accept the author's simple truth...nicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21152058596304734782007-06-23T09:49:00.000-04:002007-06-23T09:49:00.000-04:00Anonymous said:Thermo what?http://www.trueorigin.o...Anonymous said:<BR/><BR/><I>Thermo what?<BR/><BR/>http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp</I><BR/><BR/>Heh, thermo what indeed. I'll take a brief look at this so-called rebuttal:<BR/><BR/><B>The debate between proponents of evolutionism and creation scientists concerning thermodynamics seems likely to continue without end. This is not because the laws of thermodynamics (and their ramifications) are subject to debate or relativistic interpretation, but because a handful of dogmatic evolutionists continue to vocally and energetically deny the truth concerning a simple matter of scientific knowledge</B><BR/><BR/>So in other words these unnamed "creation scientists" could win this "debate" if dogmatic evolutionists would just shut up accept the author's simple truth, which is:<BR/><BR/><B>The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)</B><BR/><BR/>Leaving aside the bad grammar headache this gave me, the first problem is the author implies the biological theory of evolution and the prevailing theory about how the universe evolved are both part of the same process. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any quantum mechanical explanation for abiogenesis (which would be quite interesting,) or any hypothesis for how natural selection and genetic drift influenced the formation of stars and planets, so I think we'd be hard-pressed to say these two things can be put under the same heading. These are also two very different systems, the universe in its entirety (possibly a closed system) and a more localized system, namely the Earth, which is an open system.<BR/><BR/>Regarding cosmology, we know from quantum mechanics that "something comes from nothing" all the time, <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle" REL="nofollow">virtual particles,</A> also known as <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy" REL="nofollow">vacuum fluctuations</A> come into existence briefly out of empty space, and are detectable as forces. I would love to see the "you can't get something from nothing" argument go away, but I won't hold my breath. Further, the second law states: the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase <B>over time,</B> however time began with the big bang. Thirdly, I don't think we can really say what the universe came from, be it something or nothing, because we may never be able to know what happened before the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_epoch" REL="nofollow">Planck Era.</A> <BR/><BR/>Looking at the biology aspect, first of all the crust of the Earth is an open system, which is to say it receives energy from the Sun, along with heat from the core. It also receives matter, 100 tons of space dust a day. So I don't think it makes sense to consider it a closed system. Second the process of <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization" REL="nofollow">self-organization</A> is never mentioned. Thirdly, I don't think anyone is claiming evolution occurred spontaneously. Fourth, "entropy" is not the same thing as "disorder," disorder does not necessarily have to increase over time. And finally if we fall back to a creationist discussion of "information," it is my understanding that applying the second law of thermodynamics to "information" is rather problematic.<BR/><BR/>I'll leave it there, if our creationist friends would care to explain why the Earth is a closed system or why we should consider the theory of evolution to be applicable to cosmology I would be interested to hear that.nicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68836981982937523312007-06-23T09:22:00.000-04:002007-06-23T09:22:00.000-04:00Thanks for the link, benny. Not only is the Prigo...Thanks for the link, benny. Not only is the Prigogine article interesting in its own right, but how the quote was misused is a very good example of a typical Creationist tactic: to cherry-pick a quote out of context, or without the qualifying statements that went before and after.<BR/><BR/>How many apologists have quoted Darwin's misgivings about the complexity of the eye, and conveniently left out what came afterwards: Darwin's conviction that, difficult though it might be to imagine, it must nonetheless have happened, step by step.zilchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74977869729047015492007-06-22T19:48:00.000-04:002007-06-22T19:48:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.david ellisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55546965333349388112007-06-22T19:42:00.000-04:002007-06-22T19:42:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.bennynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71427160611109923192007-06-22T18:36:00.000-04:002007-06-22T18:36:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.david ellisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43879976291811361982007-06-22T18:31:00.000-04:002007-06-22T18:31:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.david ellisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30188127611514393102007-06-22T18:14:00.000-04:002007-06-22T18:14:00.000-04:00anonymous creationist,Your article employs more of...anonymous creationist,<BR/><BR/>Your article employs more of the creationist trick of deliberate mis-representation when it gives this quote:<BR/><BR/>“The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.”<BR/>[I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)]<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jan03.html#Prigogine" REL="nofollow">Click here to see why this was a deceptive mis-quote.</A><BR/><BR/>Do creationists ever try to make their case *without* mis-representing or fabricating things?<BR/><BR/>More later after I review the article in more detail.Bennynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39732118062431717282007-06-22T17:57:00.000-04:002007-06-22T17:57:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.david ellisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25741741254792347932007-06-22T17:46:00.000-04:002007-06-22T17:46:00.000-04:00It's fun seeing you all squirm!In face of all the ...It's fun seeing you all squirm!<BR/><BR/>In face of all the evidence you look away and plug your ears. <BR/><BR/>Listen, I've read your responses. You all want to talk about intellectual honesty and academic integrity? <BR/><BR/>GIVE ME A BREAK!<BR/><BR/>You just don't know when you've been beaten. Give it up. <BR/><BR/>Thermo what?<BR/><BR/>http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp<BR/><BR/>Hey my dad can beat up your dad! Na na na na na NA!!!!!<BR/><BR/>CUT IT OUT!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10106994766641336322007-06-22T14:52:00.000-04:002007-06-22T14:52:00.000-04:00err...that should be "pursuit"err...that should be "pursuit"Spirulahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556681288241092875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68490687202846529192007-06-22T14:51:00.000-04:002007-06-22T14:51:00.000-04:00Well, I was going to respond to Jorge's distortion...Well, I was going to respond to Jorge's distortions as well but I see someone else has. But as an apologist for intelligent design, his complaining about intellectual integrity and scholarly pursit really had me laughing.Spirulahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556681288241092875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36733475382911150262007-06-22T14:35:00.000-04:002007-06-22T14:35:00.000-04:00According to Geology and the Young Earth from the ...According to <A HREF="http://www.trueorigin.org/walkergeo01.asp" REL="nofollow">Geology and the Young Earth</A> from the trueorigin website:<BR/><BR/>"True knowledge begins with the Bible (Proverbs 1:7, Psalms 119:160; 138:2), and that is where we need to start. God was there when He created the world. He knows everything, does not tell lies, and does not make mistakes. It is from the Bible that we learn that the world is ‘young’."nicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44144484334139147542007-06-22T14:28:00.000-04:002007-06-22T14:28:00.000-04:00"If TO is going to educate, then educate they shou..."If TO is going to educate, then educate they should! To educate means to present all sides in truth and completeness and accuracy."<BR/><BR/>Okay, let's have some fun with this<BR/><BR/>So you are advocating that we should teach Holocaust denial, that slavery is biblically supported and should be reinstituted (many still hold to this nonsense), that various "minority" races are inherently inferior, etc etc. I mean, come on! You have to give all sides equal time to be fair right? We should present the above views when discussing these topics as well right?<BR/><BR/>No. It is possible that there is no reason to present the opposing view because it has no merit whatsoever. <BR/><BR/>By the way, many at TO are religious to one degree or another. Please read through the feedback section as this is a common accusation found in the feedback. There many from TO clearly state their religious beliefs and acceptance of Evolution. So please, how about you actually address their arguments instead of presenting red herrings in order to distract people from your total lack of a substantial response.<BR/><BR/>“1. A clearly stated disclaimer at their website indicating that their goal is about promoting the theory of evolution—to the point of demanding ‘special’ interpretations of the Bible—and, more generally, about promoting a naturalistic, materialistic view of the universe (a la Carl Sagan).”<BR/><BR/>From the TO site:<BR/><BR/>“The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.”<BR/><BR/>Learn to read.<BR/><BR/>“2. A truthful, accurate and complete presentation of views other than evolution or naturalism (e.g., intelligent design theory) alongside their own preferred views. If they are unclear as to what these other views are, then they should conduct a serious, scholarly inquiry and not simply post some incomplete or distorted version of what they believe the other side has to say on the matter.”<BR/><BR/>See here: http://talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#creationism<BR/><BR/>You can also find opposing views to nearly every article on TO linked at the side bar of the article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22465073529078040752007-06-22T14:22:00.000-04:002007-06-22T14:22:00.000-04:00anonymous creationist,TalkOrigins is biased? Sorr...anonymous creationist,<BR/><BR/>TalkOrigins is biased? Sorry, but debunking creationist ignorance is not bias. I invite you to back up your charge of bias by showing us a factually false claim made by TalkOrigins.Bennynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40871489392254665892007-06-22T14:09:00.000-04:002007-06-22T14:09:00.000-04:00Sigh. Once again, for the nth time, the willful m...Sigh. Once again, for the nth time, the willful misinterpretation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by Creationists.<BR/><BR/>Can't you get it through your heads? This information is available everywhere: on the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics" REL="nofollow">internet</A>, or in any good high school science class: the tendency for entropy to increase applies to a <I>closed system</I>. Living things are <I>open systems</I>, and they take energy from the environment to decrease their entropy- in other words, to increase their information.<BR/><BR/>So while the average entropy of the Universe increases, here and there are local eddies and whirlpools of entropy decrease: life. Nothing against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.<BR/><BR/>Why should TalkOrigins, or anyone else, consider the Bible when talking about science? The Bible was written thousands of years ago by prescientific people who didn't know better. ID is not science- no theory, no data, no evidence. It doesn't merit any more consideration than cargo cults.zilchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12288375531827420392007-06-22T13:07:00.000-04:002007-06-22T13:07:00.000-04:00Clearly the majority of TO supporters belong to th...Clearly the majority of TO supporters belong to the atheist/agnostic/naturalist camp. Hence, to them there is no afterlife (certainly not one in the Christian sense) nor is there a personal God; a judgment by Jesus Christ; accountability to a Creator; heaven or hell. This belief is their choice and no one is denying their right to this choice. However...<BR/><BR/>To those that visit the TO site in search of answers—people that may be undecided and seeking unbiased information—to these people TO owes the courtesy of behaving in an informative capacity and not as an indoctrination site. <BR/><BR/>But it goes far beyond being just courteous or professional. It is morally irresponsible to misguide people through omission into any position that has eternal consequences—yes, eternal consequences. That last statement may sound religiously biased but is actually a logical result since, regardless of who is right or wrong in this matter, the ultimate end is of eternal consequences (whether an eternity in the grave, or an eternity in heaven or hell).<BR/><BR/>This, then, is my strongest criticism of TO. If TO is going to educate, then educate they should! To educate means to present all sides in truth and completeness and accuracy. Education is the antithesis of indoctrination. In this article I have presented but a small sample of the many cases where TO is guilty of being nowhere near complete, accurate or truthful. In some cases this may have been through their ignorance, and in other cases through deliberate intent—I’ll not pretend to know which of the two is the case.<BR/><BR/>One thing is clear, if intellectual integrity and ethics mean anything to the TO staff, then after this article I would expect to see one of two things—ideally it would be both:<BR/><BR/> 1. A clearly stated disclaimer at their website indicating that their goal is about promoting the theory of evolution—to the point of demanding ‘special’ interpretations of the Bible—and, more generally, about promoting a naturalistic, materialistic view of the universe (a la Carl Sagan).<BR/> 2. A truthful, accurate and complete presentation of views other than evolution or naturalism (e.g., intelligent design theory) alongside their own preferred views. If they are unclear as to what these other views are, then they should conduct a serious, scholarly inquiry and not simply post some incomplete or distorted version of what they believe the other side has to say on the matter.<BR/><BR/>I cannot see how Talk.Origins will be able to acquire a status of objectivity and truthfulness without adding at least one of these attributes to their site. As it stands, Talk.Origins is an affront to the ideal of intellectual integrity, scholarly pursuit and moral responsibility. <BR/> <BR/>Jorge Fernandeztorpeedosawaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14660027484920854262007-06-22T13:01:00.000-04:002007-06-22T13:01:00.000-04:00To define our terms, in Classical Thermodynamics t...To define our terms, in Classical Thermodynamics the term “entropy” is the measure of the amount of energy unavailable for work in a physical system. Left to itself over time, any such system will end with less available energy (i.e., a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy) than when it started, according to the 2nd law. In this classic form, the 2nd law applies specifically to probability of distribution with regard to heat and energy relationships of physical systems, and as such, the entropy involved may be described specifically as thermal entropy.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, the “generalized 2nd law” applies the same entropy principle to information systems in such a way that, left to itself over time, the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete than when it began (again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case informational entropy), and likewise, applied to Statistics, left to itself over time, the order or regularity of a system will be less than when it began (and again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case statistical entropy).<BR/>The vital point to be grasped here is that the presence of a system (whether organizational or mechanical) hardly guarantees continuous enhancement, but more realistically is subject to continual degradation, if it is not kept to the pre-determined standard defined in its original design. Evolutionistic thinking often ignores this principle, despite the fact that it is a profoundly and empirically established scientific fact.goforthejugularnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60153299655620999202007-06-22T12:57:00.000-04:002007-06-22T12:57:00.000-04:00http://www.trueorigin.org/Two can play your franti...http://www.trueorigin.org/<BR/><BR/>Two can play your frantic panic child's game. Links to a biased web site is all you have?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16174517276079231632007-06-22T12:27:00.000-04:002007-06-22T12:27:00.000-04:00"If natural selection were true humans in the trop..."If natural selection were true humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't."<BR/><BR/>That's priceless. "If God were benevolent, humans would have been born in Heaven to help them keep happy, but they weren't." :lol:zilchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66860056456108084082007-06-22T12:21:00.000-04:002007-06-22T12:21:00.000-04:00Holy ignorance, Batman! (more gems from the page o...Holy ignorance, Batman! (more gems from the page of "scientific facts")<BR/><BR/><I>We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.</I><BR/><BR/>I haven't heard of anyone claiming that wings evolved into arms, except for fundies with a gross mis-understanding of biology and evolution.<BR/><BR/><I>If evolution were true all plants, animals and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical because there would not be separate species. There would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species.</I><BR/><BR/>More of the same...<BR/><BR/><I>The fossil record has no intermediate or transitional forms.</I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html" REL="nofollow">Actually, it does.</A><BR/><BR/><I>[The Archaeopteryx fossils] is simply another forgery by evolutionists in a desperate attempt to prove Darwin's theory of evolution.</I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC351.html" REL="nofollow">Not so.</A><BR/><BR/><I>One cannot deny the obvious conclusion that [the flagellum] has an Intelligent Designer. The evolutionists pray for an explanation to save the collapse of Darwinism. Creationism has become the true science and Darwinism has degenerated into a myth.</I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html" REL="nofollow">Just a good ol' argument from incredulity.</A><BR/><BR/><I>Males cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory...</I><BR/><BR/>nick, it appears it's not just females who are excluded :)<BR/><BR/><I>The mutation changes are random, unpredictable errors that cause crippling diseases, loss of function and the destruction of the host person or animal. Mutations destroy the species. They do not improve the species.</I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html" REL="nofollow">Wrong again.</A><BR/><BR/><I>The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong.</I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html" REL="nofollow">I do not think that Law means what you think it means.</A><BR/><BR/><I>There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA.</I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html" REL="nofollow">See response 1, point 3.</A><BR/><BR/><I>Some people fail to see the connection between the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, but the connection is very real. Evolution was conceived in order to ignore creation by an infinitely powerful God. The evolutionists soon realized that creation of the Earth and all the cosmos had to be ignored also. The Big Bang myth quickly gained the support of atheistic scientists. The two theories are intertwined to oppose creation as taught in the Bible. If one theory falters, both falter.</I><BR/><BR/>Beware the evil atheist scientific conspiracy!<BR/><BR/>I pity the fool who gets his science from sources like this...Bennynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80937058182356930072007-06-22T11:44:00.000-04:002007-06-22T11:44:00.000-04:00Anonymous- I've read Gosse too (Omphalos is availa...Anonymous- I've read Gosse too (<A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=acwQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=omphalos#PPA5,M1" REL="nofollow">Omphalos</A> is available online), and it's pious nonsense, another example of the bizarre eddies thrown up by the crosscurrents of believing in a fairy tale yet wanting to make it jibe with the facts. As Charles Kingsly, a friend of Gosse, wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Shall I tell you the truth? It is best. Your book is the first that ever made me doubt [the doctrine of absolute creation], and I fear it will make hundreds do so. Your book tends to prove this - that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes God-the-Sometime-Deceiver. I do not mean merely in the case of fossils which pretend to be the bones of dead animals; but in ... your newly created Adam's navel, you make God tell a lie. It is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here ... I cannot ... believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind."zilchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.com